Fixed-term contract clauses did the heavy lifting, but the letter raised questions
A Canberra teacher argued a senior HR letter had promised him another contract. The Fair Work Commission disagreed, but the language came close to causing problems.
On 4 May 2026, the Fair Work Commission published its decision in Ian Greig v Australian Capital Territory, dismissing a teacher's unfair dismissal application against the ACT government. The decision, by Commissioner Sloan, was an edited version of reasons delivered on transcript at the hearing in Canberra on 24 April 2026.
Ian Greig had taught at Narrabundah College under three temporary employment contracts commencing on 12 February 2024. His most recent contract ran from 23 January 2025 to 21 January 2026, governed by the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (ACT), with a clause stating: "The employee has no reasonable expectation for employment beyond the specified period of employment."
In September 2025, the Director-General of the ACT Education Directorate circulated a message titled "Update on school budget management planning," signalling that temporary staff identified as no longer required for 2026 would be offered a further engagement at another school or an alternative role supporting system priorities, and if no appropriate role were available, a further engagement at their current school.
On 28 November 2025, Megan Altenburg, the Principal at Narrabundah College, wrote to Greig telling him his role had been identified as "surplus to need" for 2026, and that, in line with the Minister's commitment to extending temporary staff into 2026, he would be provided with another temporary contract within the ACT public school system. The letter also noted that opportunities would depend on available vacancies and operational needs.
Twelve days later, Tegan Jones, Senior Director, People and Conduct, wrote that an assessment had been carried out regarding Greig's suitability for "a contract extension" and that his contract "would not be extended." He was welcome to apply for advertised positions through usual recruitment processes. His employment ended on 21 January 2026.
Greig filed an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 13 February 2026. The Territory raised a jurisdictional objection. At the hearing, the Territory was represented by Mr K Fox of counsel; Greig appeared on his own behalf.
Commissioner Sloan was not persuaded. Jones gave evidence that her reference to "extension" was a misstatement and that she meant a further temporary contract. That evidence was not challenged in cross-examination, although the Commissioner placed limited weight on this given Greig was not an experienced advocate. The Commissioner pointed to Altenburg's wording about "another temporary contract" and to the conditional nature of any suggestion of ongoing employment, which was clear on the face of the letter.
Drawing on Alouani-Roby v National Rugby League Limited [2024] FCAFC 161, the Commissioner accepted that a contract expressed to terminate on the expiry of a nominated term is a contract for a specified period, satisfying section 386(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act. The cessation of employment therefore could not be a dismissal.
Although unnecessary, the Commissioner addressed section 386(1)(a), referring to Khayam v Navitas English Pty Ltd [2017] FWCFB 5162. He pointed to the regulatory restrictions imposed by the Public Sector Management Act; the exclusively temporary relief nature of Greig's work, replacing employees at Narrabundah College absent on leave; the absence, apart from the 28 November letter, of anything suggesting the employment would continue beyond the contract; and the fact that the letter, properly read, did not guarantee or offer ongoing employment. Had section 386(2)(a) not applied, the Commissioner would have found the termination was not at the employer's initiative.
The jurisdictional objection was upheld and the application dismissed.
The case is a quiet warning about how much weight loose language can carry. A single word, "extension," forced a senior HR figure to give evidence explaining what she had really meant. The fixed-term clause and the absence of any reasonable expectation of further work held the line. Conditional phrasing in workforce communications, the kind that signals possibility rather than promise, matters when a letter ends up being read aloud at a hearing.
